Rome was an example of universal state becoming the strongest state of the European antiquity, remaining however in the collective memory as a mechanism that worked perfectly, determined by the Roman law system that distinguished itself by the high degree of abstraction, by the lapidary logical constructions, as well as by a perfect legislative technique. It is unanimously acknowledged that the Roman law has not remained a mere historical document, continuing to directly influence subsequent regulatory systems, proving both its viability and its living spirit. This has lead to the suggestive assertion in the specialized doctrine that „although the kingdom of the Roman people has perished, the kingdom of Roman law still lives”1, and at a brief analysis it can be established that the Roman juridical way of thinking is present in the system of the European modern legislative construction.

The registers of the professionals are the main tool for knowledge, recording and control of their activity. Along with these functions, the registers of the professionals also have a probative function, the legislator including them in the category of documents under private signature, although they do not constitute a proper written evidence, but an improper one. The entries made in the registers are not made for the purpose of constituting an evidence, but of keeping the records, as established by law. But, through these entries, the professional practically recognizes the attested circumstances, the operations performed. The legal regime of registers of the professionals derogates from the principle of nemo sibi titulum constituere potest, a derogation which is explained by the nature and functions of the registers of the professionals, as well as by the conditions established by the law for keeping them. The Civil Procedure Code lays down the general rules referring to the probative force of the registers of the professionals (therefore, of the registers of all professionals, and not only of the traders’ registers), distinguishing, from a probative point of view, between the registers drawn up and kept in compliance with legal provisions and the registers kept in non-compliance with the legal provisions. The provisions of Article 280 of the Civil Procedure Code (called „Registers of the professionals”) are applicable only to registers, and not to other categories of documents, such as invoices, telegrams, faxes, receipts, etc., from professionals. The registers of the professionals can not bring evidence against the foreigners concerning the relationship among professionals, even if they are regularly kept. The delimitation of the legal relations between professionals from other civil legal relations is based on the concepts of professional and enterprise, concepts whose meanings are specified in Article 3 of the Civil Code, and Article 8 (1) of the Law No 71/2011 for the implementation of the Civil Code includes in the notion of „professional” the categories of „trader, entrepreneur, economic operator, as well as any other persons authorized to carry out economic or professional activities”. The records of the professionals kept in compliance with the legal provisions can give full evidence in court, both to the contrary and in favour of those who keep them, provided that the dispute is between professionals and concerns operations or legal acts which constitute facts and matters related to their professional activity. The registers of professionals, unlawfully kept, can not represent evidence in court in favour of those who have kept them. These registers provide evidence against the professional who kept them, but the part that prevails on them can not divide their content. The evidence resulted from the registers of the professionals is left by the legislator at the sovereign appreciation of the court, whether or not they are legally kept. The court can base its own solution even on other evidence. But, it must motivate the admission or removal of the registers as means of evidence. The registers of professionals may be presented in the trial by appearance or, as the case may be, by communication, or may be investigated by rogatory commission, provided that the documents or registers are in another court jurisdiction.

In this study, the author presents, from the point of view of the constitutional law, the complex process of re-emergence of the state formations after the break-up of the Roman imperial administration at the end of the 5th century. The collapse of the boundaries of the West Roman Empire and the penetration of the conquering migratory populations to its centre have generated not only the destruction of the military capacity of the empire and its army, but also of the political institutions and of the entire Roman administration. Practically, the Roman state has entered an advanced dissolution process that has led also to the replacement of the old production relations with new relations. Instead of the Roman administration, rudimentarily organized patriarchal formations which responded to the new military conditions imposed on the indigenous population by the conquering populations appeared. At the same time with these, in the former Roman provinces, the Christian churches continued to carry on a social organization activity. Practically, the Christian Church took over some social organization and management functions, specific in the past to the Roman administration. The gradual conversion of the conquering populations to Christianity has stimulated the process of restating and the emergence of the first barbarian kingdoms. The Church had thus an overwhelming role and hastened the re-emergence of the statehood on the former territories of the vast Roman Empire. Finally, new states have emerged on the European continent, with well defined ethnic physiognomies and endowed with a political administration based on constitutional principles that have proven their validity in the subsequent centuries. At the same time with the formation of the new states, a new theory of the political institutions has been forged and gradually developed, in which, along with the elements of laic thinking, many precepts of Christian religion can be emphasized.

For the Romanian legal system, the case law does not have the quality of formal source of law. Nevertheless, the legal reality, also seen from a historical perspective, has demonstrated the essential role of the judicial practice in interpreting and enforcing the law, in constructing the argumentative practices, in clarifying the will of the legislator, and in discovering less obvious meanings of the legal norms, and last but not least to the unification of legal thinking and practice. Therefore the case law, together with the doctrine, is an important component of the Romanian legal system. Staring from these considerations, in this study we aim to emphasize a few aspects of constitutional case law. We are underlining its contribution to the emergence of the constitutionality control of laws in Romania. Under the influence of the Constitution of 1866, which did not regulate such a control in an institutional manner, the courts have assumed this competence by interpreting the law and by jurisprudential way. There are also presented and analyzed important contributions of the case law of the Constitutional Court, but also of the judiciary courts to the development of constitutionality control in our country. We support the idea that the case law currently plays an important role in the interpretation of the constitutional norms, including in terms of deepening the forms of constitutional control.

By Decision No 405/2016, the Romanian Constitutional Court (CCR) ruled that the provisions of Article 297 (1) of the Criminal Code (misfeasance in office or misconduct in office) are constitutional only if the sentence „fulfils wrongfully” has the meaning of „fulfils by breaching the law”. However, in more than two years from the publication of this Constitutional Court Decision, it is worth to notice that the jurisprudence of the criminal courts knows diametrically opposed interpretations. In one opinion, the Decision is interpreted as of the utmost generality, while a second opinion regards the CCR provisions as being of strict interpretation, whereas for the existence of the respective criminal offence is necessary that the public servant breach one of the laws that govern his activity or at least a provision that is part of its duties in office. The article presents the jurisprudence of the Romanian courts related to the crime of „misfeasance in office” while examining it in the light of the requirements of the principle of legality and of the CCR Decision considerations.